Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38711921›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

Comparing different boost concepts and beam configurations for proton therapy of pancreatic cancer.

Taiki Takaoka, Takeshi Yanagi, Shinsei Takahashi, Yuta Shibamoto, Yuto Imai, Dai Okazaki, Masanari Niwa, Akira Torii, Nozomi Kita, Seiya Takano and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Taiki TakaokaDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
Takeshi YanagiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Narita Memorial Proton Center, Toyohashi, Japan.
Shinsei TakahashiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Narita Memorial Proton Center, Toyohashi, Japan.
Yuta ShibamotoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Narita Memorial Proton Center, Toyohashi, Japan.
Yuto ImaiDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
Dai OkazakiDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
Masanari NiwaDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
Akira ToriiDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
Nozomi KitaDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
Seiya TakanoDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
Natsuo TomitaDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
Akio HiwatashiDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Interfractional geometrical and anatomical variations impact the accuracy of proton therapy for pancreatic cancer. This study investigated field-in-field (FIF) and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) concepts for scanned proton therapy treatment with different beam configurations. Materials and Methods: Robustly optimized treatment plans for fifteen patients were generated using FIF and SIB techniques with two, three, and four beams. The prescribed dose in 20 fractions was 60 Gy(RBE) for the internal gross tumor volume (IGTV) and 46 Gy(RBE) for the internal clinical target volume. Verification computed tomography (vCT) scans was performed on treatment days 1, 7, and 16. Initial treatment plans were recalculated on the rigidly registered vCTs. V Results: For all techniques, IGTV V Conclusion: Target coverage decreased when recalculating on CTs at different time for both concepts. The FIF with three beams maintained the highest IGTV coverage while sparing normal organs the most.

Indexed as

Field-in-fieldPancreatic cancerPencil-beam scanningProton therapySimultaneous integrated boost

Identifiers

PMID38711921
PMCPMC11070341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.